Jump to content

Zuqual

Defender-In-Training
  • Content Count

    311
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Zuqual

  1. Influence points probably should have been retired at the start of open alpha. They where a means of keeping early adopters engaged and of having the importance of one's feedback be tied to the degree of one's engagement. This is no longer important or desirable for them. The game is now being shaped to be as appealing as possible to less engaged players who don't know about or often visit the forums. As such, influence points just create an expectation which there is no interest or payoff in satisfying.
  2. Those are the details we're going to figure out. What do you think? Should the towers stay? Should they disappear? Should we give bonuses or penalties for keeping certain heroes in your deck? This is the kind of feedback and idea generation that we're hoping to see from the community. If the towers remain, I think, it would satisfy the solo players who hate the hero deck so much (like me) It would. And if they don't then it would change exactly nothing for solo players. That's why this news about the hero deck is no news at all. What we've learned is that they are open to characters being swapped in combat, and that's about it. Outside of that, they want to change the hero deck but they aren't sure whether that change is going to mean nothing, or complete freedom, or any position in between. Reading this thread, I feel like I'm going crazy (or am the only sane one left). It's like we had been complaining for a year that the game only came in grey. And then in a much anticipated announcement they explained that they where going to change the color. It might come in white. Or it might come in black. Or maybe it would come in some color in between, and could we please provide some feedback. And then everyone is super happy about the announced change even though the only news is that there will be change. We already knew that. Hopefully it isn't just a stalling tactic. Hopefully the feedback is more important than, say, the feedback on speed and range was. Lest the post be only ***ing, here's some feedback: Swapping characters during combat is neat, but not healthy for the game. It will be immersion breaking in ways that I don't think people are anticipating and will remove what little attachment we have for the older versions of the beloved DD1 characters. It will remove a good bit of required planning. I also worry about Trendy building well rounded characters in an environment where any momentary weakness in a character can be completely compensated for by immediately switching to a different character. It does, however, do a good job of incentivizing the purchase of narrowly constructed characters who exist only for a combat specific niche.
  3. I'm a little surprised by how mollified people seem. If none of the details of how the system will work have been ironed out then this news is no news at all. The possibilities for solo play range all the way from even less restrictive than DD1 to effectively no change from the current implementation. I suppose I'm a cynical ***, but this reads to me like a stalling tactic in the guise of feedback solicitation.
  4. I didn't catch the stream. What happens if you build a tower with character A and then remove character A from your deck? If the tower remains, then the deck is just about limiting how many characters you can play during combat. If the tower is removed then this change helps groups while doing nothing for solo play.
  5. It would be nice if the system notified you when your post gets deleted by a mod.
  6. I'd offer you a drink, but we only have four glasses.
  7. It was the first one I've watched in a while, and it was definitely better than the ones I remember. The new guy seems to have a coherent and palatable philosophy about game design, and it comes through well. Will have to wait two weeks I guess. My hope is that the hero deck announcement was put off because they either weren't ready or this was judged to be more important. Part of me worries though that this was the hopeful enticement before they announce a stance that might otherwise cause a lot of people to give up.
  8. Time to KnowSomeLimits. You're entitled to give feedback, and they are entitled to ignore it. You can't make them listen to you. Calling them incompetent, rightly or wrongly, doesn't make them any more likely to consider your opinion. Maybe it's time to walk away for a while.
  9. A talent tree. Scrap the spheres. Take the builds off the gear. Give us a tree that we use to craft our character. If I can't have that as an alternative to the horror that is the current passives game, then... Gems. Passives drop as a new item category which can be inserted into gear. The better the gear type, the more slots it has for gems.
  10. "The reason why I shouldn't compare DD1 to DD2" Fixed.
  11. iamisom The proposal to derive strategy from a diverse set of heroes in the context of a limited hero deck is very reminiscent of how builds were described to work six months ago. That didn't/hasn't really panned out, but it also always felt like you guys were just making up builds as you went along. I hope for your sake that the devs thoroughly map out and divide the strategic landscape before they start creating the characters. Doing it piecemeal is a recipe for disaster. It's certainly an ambitious idea to make it work the way you describe. I'm not sure if it's a game I would want to play, but I hope you pull it off either way.
  12. All builds should be enabled through an expanded sphere-esque system. Gear should determine how powerful your chosen play type is, not which types of play you get to choose.
  13. It's important to remember when thinking about making changes that the players who participate in the forums don't represent the player base at large. Most of the players have no problem with the way the forum is set up, so I see no need to change it.
  14. We'll just gloss over the insult. You are entirely correct: if all they did was remove resistances then the defense setups would be even more stale. On the other hand, if they put in the work to make you want to use different tower setups in different situations with something more nuanced than a orange or purple line, the game might be a lot more interesting. They don't have to do that work as long as color coded lanes force you to use two setups. You have to look past a single design choice and realize what that design choice has meant to the way the rest of the game developed around it. Just because a feature satisfies a design goal doesn't make it a good feature.
×
×
  • Create New...